OUR LAND, OUR LIFE

A Participatory Assessment of the Land Tenure Situation

of Indigenous Peoples in Guyana
Report for Regions 1, 2, 7, 8 & 9

Amerindian Peoples Association

Forest Peoples Programme and Rainforest Foundation US
OUR LAND, OUR LIFE: A Participatory Assessment of the Land Tenure Situation of
Indigenous Peoples in Guyana

Report for Regions 1, 2, 7, 8 & 9

Authors: Orlanson Agard, Paulinus Albert, Caroline Allicock, Sharon Atkinson, John Alfred,
Roger Alfred, Germy Benjamin, Paul Benjamin, Valentina Benjamin, Matthew Charlie, Shane
Cornelius, William Daniels, Andrew Da Silva, Ian David, James Davis, Garner Edwards,
Sunita Ernest, Joseph Fredericks, Gregory Gregory Fernandes, Rauldyn George, Keron
Hastings, Melvin Henry, Collin Ignacio, Dan James, Elvan James, Ron James, Tony James,
Angelbert Johnny, Glenda Joseph, Gregory Joseph, Shane Joseph, Romona Larson, Uriel
Mandukin, Michael McGarrell, Marcus Moses, Ryan Perreira, Ann Peters, Charles Peters,
Chris Peters, Terry Richmond, Yanette Roberts, Kemal Robinson, Devroy Thomas, Hanley
Thomas, Nilza Thompson, Norman Walker, David Wilson, Ignatius Williams, and Judy Winter
Editors: Laura George, Christine Halvorson, and Lan Mei
Maps: Cameron Ellis, Ron James, and Michael McGarrell
Design and layout: Maryka Paquette
Photos: Amerindian Peoples Association

Cover photo: Destruction of river bank in Micobie.

The contents of this report may be reproduced and distributed for non-commercial purposes
if prior notice is given to the editors and the source and authors are duly acknowledged.

Disclaimer: Map figures contained in this report are for indicative and illustrative purposes
only and do not purport to have accurate geo-referenced information of indigenous village
titles or other boundaries and locations. Please note that the map information may become
out of date over time. While all efforts have been made by the land tenure assessment teams
and authors to verify and validate the tenure analysis contained in this report, the information
provided is not exhaustive and some elements may be out of date. Land tenure information
(including details on land title extension requests) provided in this report should therefore be
verified with the relevant communities. Likewise, this report should not be considered to be a
full account of indigenous peoples’ traditional occupation, use and settlement of their lands
and territories.

Legal disclaimer: Any summaries of legal documents and court cases should not be taken
as authoritative interpretations of the law and should not be considered to be a legal opinion
or legal advice. They are intended solely to be plain English explanations of the law and legal
decisions to help provide the reader with some background information.

Donor funding for the production and publication of this report

came from the Norway’s International Climate and Forest Initiative.
The views and analysis contained in this report do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of the donor organisations.

© Amerindian Peoples Association, Forest Peoples Programme, and Rainforest Foundation

US, 2021

Amerindian
Peoples
Association

Amerindian Peoples Association Forest Peoples Programme Rainforest Foundation US

200 Charlotte Street, Bourda 1c Fosseway Business Centre, 50 Court St. Suite 712
Georgetown, Guyana Stratford Road, Brooklyn, NY 11201 USA
Tel: +592 2238150 Moreton-in-Marsh, UK Tel: +1 212 431 9098
apaguyana.com Tel: +44 1608 652893 rainforestfoundation.org
forestpeoples.org

02
CONTENTS

LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE LAND TENURE ASSESSMENTS 4

KEY FINDINGS 5

Failure to recognize collective territories 5

Inadequate recognition of customary lands 6
Demarcation errors 7
Mapping problems 9
Land conflicts 10
Lack of clarity of title 10

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS 11

LAND TENURE ASSESSMENT RESULTS AT-A-GLANCE 14

DETAILED RECOMMENDATIONS 15

Main recommendation 1 15
Main recommendation 2 20
Main recommendation 3 24
Main recommendation 4 26

03
LESSONS LEARNED FROM THE
LAND TENURE ASSESSMENTS

From 2012 through 2020, the Amerindian Peoples Association, in collaboration with
local researchers, conducted land tenure assessments across Regions 1, 2, 7, 8, and
9. The researchers utilized participatory research methods to collect information
about indigenous land rights in Guyana, and the results of these studies have been
published in a series of detailed reports1. This report summarizes the key findings
from this series of land tenure assessments as well as the key recommendations
coming from indigenous communities regarding steps the government can take to
ensure security of tenure.

The Key Findings point to a number of concerns regarding tenure security across all
regions. These include:

— The failure to recognize collective territories

— The inadequate recognition of customary lands
— Demarcation errors
— Map problems
— Land conflicts
— Lack of clarity of title

The Key Recommendations that follow are gathered from village and regional leaders,
elders and other knowledge holders, and include the voices of women and youth.
Specifically, indigenous peoples across the country recommended:

— Revising the Amerindian Act to bring it in line with international standards for
protection of indigenous peoples’ rights
— Improving the land titling process to better protect indigenous land rights
— Addressing land conflicts by respecting the right to effective participation and
free, prior, and informed consent
— Correcting mapping errors.

The researchers and authors of this series of studies hope that this report will inform
government policies—including revision of the Amerindian Act, land titling, and
allocation of natural resource-extractive concessions—so they better respect and
protect indigenous peoples’ rights.

1
APA and FPP (2016), Wow-Rorah, Wa-Kakoh; Na’Na Nonori, Na’Na Emamiri; Ca Hota, Ma Taho; Our Land, Our Life: A Participatory
Assessment of the Land Tenure Situation of Indigenous Peoples in Guyana: Report for Region 1 and Region 2, www.forestpeoples.org/
sites/fpp/files/publication/2016/12/lta-study.pdf; APA, FPP, and RFUS (2018), Ina Pata, Ko’Mangnàtok Yeselu; Our Land, Our Life: A
Participatory Assessment of the Land Tenure Situation of Indigenous Peoples in Guyana: Report for Region 8, www.forestpeoples.org/
sites/default/files/documents/Our%20Land%2C%20Our%20Life.pdf; APA, FPP, and RFUS (2019), Ina Nono, Ina Uko’manto’, Eina
Pata, Eina Komantok; Our Land, Our Life: A Participatory Assessment of the Land Tenure Situation of Indigenous Peoples in Guyana:
Report for Region 7, https://apaguyana.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/LTA-R7-Report-Final.pdf. The report for Region 9 is forthcoming.
04
KEY FINDINGS

The land tenure assessments (“LTAs”) that have been conducted in Regions 1, 2, 7,
8, and 92 demonstrate that there is widespread land tenure insecurity among indigenous
communities in Guyana. This is so even though many indigenous villages have land
titles. In fact, the vast majority of titled indigenous villages in Guyana – at least
76 out of 85 titled villages3 visited by the LTA researchers4 – reported explicitly
that they are dissatisfied with their titles. The following key findings explain the
land tenure situation in Guyana and point out a number of areas of concern:

Failure to recognize collective territories: There is a lack of legal recognition for

titles held collectively by several villages. Indigenous peoples’ traditional land
tenure systems can involve collective ownership and management of lands and
resources shared by several villages. This was the reason that villages in the
Northwest, the Mazaruni, Pakaraimas, and Rupununi wrote to the Amerindian
Lands Commission (“ALC”) in the late 1960s to request that the government grant
them collective territorial title. Their requests were all denied. The ALC did acknowledge
the importance of some form of joint governance, however, and recommended the
formation of state-controlled districts to control unallocated lands and to represent the
common interests of the villages and others, such as miners, within the district5.

Map 1. Villages in the Upper Mazaruni continue to seek collective title as a district over their shared Akawaio and
Arecuna territory. They are awaiting a decision of the High Court to a case they filed in 1998 arguing that they have
a constitutional right to the legal recognition of territorial title.

2
Several villages in Regions 1 and 2 chose not to participate in the land tenure assessments, and the teams were unable to include
Kanashen in the Region 9 LTA as a result of budgetary constraints.
3
As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the results from the Region 9 LTA are not complete at this time, as the researchers have been
unable to visit all the villages to validate information gathered. However, preliminary results suggest that at least 21 out of 26 titled
villages in the South Rupununi (including satellite communities, comprising 49 total communities) are dissatisfied with their existing
title. In addition, the editors of this report are aware that since the Region 7 LTA report has been published, two villages, Tassarene
and Kangaruma, have received their titles, but are dissatisfied with those titles.
4
The LTA researchers visited 85 titled villages in Regions 1, 2, 7, 8, and 9. There were five titled villages in Regions 1 and 2 that did
not wish to participate in the Land Tenure Assessment, and the LTA team was unable to visit Kanashen as part of this assessment.
5
See Report by the Amerindian Lands Commission (1969), Amerindian Lands Commission, Guyana (hereinafter cited as “ALC
Report”) at paras 170-172.
05
Many villages continued to seek collective title even after receiving individual titles in
1976. Villages in the Middle Mazaruni submitted a request for collective title in 1993.
Six villages in Moruca formed the Morcua Land Council in 1997 to map their lands
and submitted a joint territorial land claim to the government in 2002. Six villages in
the Upper Mazaruni filed a court case in 1998, claiming a Constitutional right to legal
recognition of this collective form of property ownership (see Map 1). That case is still
pending a decision in the High Court as of the date of writing. More recently, in the
past few years, villages in the North Pakaraimas have agreed to start the process of
claiming a collective title over their territory. Today, only the eight villages in Karasabai
District hold title collectively as a district, and the villages report that they are happy
that their territorial title has been recognized by the government.

The failure to recognize joint territorial titles violates the right of indigenous peoples to
their customary forms of land tenure6. The fragmentation of territories into individual
villages has also led to some inter-village conflicts over traditionally shared resource use
areas. It is in recognition of the problems caused by this failure to recognize shared titles
that villages in the North Pakaraimas have revitalized their call for collective title and that
villages in the South Rupununi made inter-village shared resource agreements.

Inadequate recognition of customary lands: Most villages’ titled lands do not

correspond to—and are often smaller in area than—their traditional lands, with
77 out of 85 titled villages7 reporting that their titles do not secure their customary
lands. The pattern of issuing titles to areas smaller than a village’s traditional lands
again stems from the Amerindian Lands Commission investigations, which elders
report were not conducted in a participatory manner and did not accurately describe
the traditional lands and tenure systems of indigenous peoples. For close to thirty
villages, the ALC reported that the land requests were “excessive and beyond the
ability of the residents to develop and administer the area”8.

The root of this issue is both the government’s failure to respect indigenous peoples’
inherent rights to their traditional lands—as also evidenced by the failure to recognize
collective territorial titles—as well as a colonial and paternalistic belief that the
government knows what is best for indigenous communities. These beliefs manifested
in the ALC’s assessments of the ability of communities to manage any lands issued as
title and determinations of the titles that would be “adequate for subsistence and
development needs of the residents”9. This same attitude has persisted over the
decades, and several villages report that their title or extension requests had been
rejected by the Ministry of Amerindian Affairs for being “too big” or that they had been
told by the Ministry to revise their request for a smaller area of land.

6
See UN General Assembly, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2 October 2007, A/RES/61/295 (herein-
after cited as “UNDRIP”) at Art. 26; UNCESCR (2015), Concluding observations on the combined second to fourth periodic reports of
Guyana, E/C.12/GUY/CO/2-4 (hereinafter cited as “CESCR CO 2015”) at para 14(a)
7
A few villages either report they were satisfied with their titles or did not report about their satisfaction with their titles but did report
that their titles did not secure their customary lands.
8
See, e.g., ALC Report sections on Achiwib, Sawariwau, Nappi, Massara, Annai, Toka, Yakarinta, Kanapang, Itabac, Kurukabaru,
Kopinang, Waipa, Monkey Mountain, Kaibarupai, Mahdia-Kangaruma, Tumatumari, St. Monica Mission, Kabakaburi, Santa Rosa,
Kokerite-Barama (St. Columba’s Mission), Hotakwai, Hobodia, St. Francis, Kwabanna, Little Kanaballi, Waropoka, Kurutuku.
9
The ALC did in some instances recommend titles larger than what the community reportedly requested for the same reason that it
considered that the larger area was necessary for the community’s subsistence and development. It should be noted, as well, that many
village elders who can still remember the ALC commented that the areas reportedly requested in the ALC Report may not correspond
to actual areas of customary lands, because the ALC did not engage in proper processes to ensure that those areas were determined
in accordance with participatory processes.
06
 Map 2. There are large portions of
traditional lands that are not secured by
title but that are important to indigenous
peoples for spiritual and hunting, fishing,
gathering, and farming purposes, such as
the Ayangana Valley, Moruwa Sipuruni
Valley, and Wapichan Headwaters. There
are already numerous mining and
logging concessions that are threatening
these areas.

The inadequacy of village titles demonstrates a failure to protect indigenous peoples’

land rights as required under international human rights law10. Practically, the lack of
title has meant that village councils have less authority to control and manage those
parts of their lands. As a result, indigenous peoples have had their cultural and
spiritual sites and farming, hunting, fishing, or gathering grounds encroached upon,
damaged, and restricted from their access and management (see Map 2). This also
means indigenous peoples are not able to protect effectively the natural resources,
including forests, in their lands. Titled lands experience fewer such conflicts,
although villages also report significant disputes inside titled lands, often as a result
of inadequate titling processes, as will be discussed further below.

Demarcation errors: The majority of demarcated villages report errors in how

their lands were demarcated. At least 35 out of 68 demarcated villages have
complained that there are errors in the demarcation of their title boundary, that is, in
the physical marking of their title by cut lines and placed boundary markers on the
ground. 10 villages report that they are unsure whether the demarcation accurately
follows their title description. Several villages report being unclear as to whether the
demarcation of their title is accurate because they do not have their title plans to
compare or do not have access to technical experts who can assist in reading the
maps. At least 41 villages report dissatisfaction with their demarcation, even if they do
not report any errors in the demarcation, because they felt that the demarcation
exercise was not properly explained or conducted.

10
See, e.g., UNDRIP, Art. 26; UNCESCR (2015), Concluding observations on the combined second to fourth periodic reports of
Guyana, E/C.12/GUY/CO/2-4 (hereinafter cited as “CESCR CO 2015”) at para 14; UNCERD (2006), Concluding observations of the
Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: GUYANA, CERD/C/GUY/CO/14 (hereinafter cited as “CERD CO 2006”) at
para 16.
07
The errors and confusion caused by demarcation exercises result in part from the
failure to involve community participation, government surveyors being unwilling to
walk the entirety of village title boundaries, as well as the incompleteness of the
government database of place names. For example, Mashabo Village reports that the
government confused two creeks and thus demarcated their boundary in such a way
as to cut out the piece of land between the two creeks. The village believes that this
error would not have been made had the government sought information from the
village in doing the demarcation.

Demarcation errors have caused or exacerbated conflicts and confusion resulting

from inadequate land titles. Some errors have caused inter-village conflicts. For
example, a demarcation error caused the headwaters of Puwa River to be marked
out of Kanapang’s title and into Kurukabaru’s. This has caused some conflict around
resource and land use, although villagers have tried to resolve this conflict by reminding
one another that they understand their lands to belong to a shared territory. In other
villages, it is unclear who may vote in village elections because only those living
inside village boundaries are included in voter lists.

More problematic is that demarcation errors have left village councils uncertain about
the geographic extent of their authority under the Amerindian Act, particularly when
the errors result in the exclusion of important resource areas from the village’s title.
For example, the Amerindian Act requires loggers and small- and medium-scale
miners to obtain permission from a village prior to working inside titled lands. The
village of Sebai in Region 1 reports that its demarcation cut out a portion of its lands,
and that this had caused a logging company to move onto village lands, because the
company either thought or chose to believe that the demarcated line was the correct
boundary line with the village.

Map 3. Confusion of the names of two rivers in Kaikan has resulted in the incorrect exclusion of a significant portion
of the village’s title from government maps. This error has contributed to conflicts with miners in that part of the
village’s lands and significant damage to the village’s resource areas by mining activity.

08
Mapping problems: Villages report errors in government maps or that maps
produced by different government agencies contain discrepancies. Villages report
that the lack of proper information regarding indigenous place names in particular has
caused significant mapping errors. For example, Kaikan Village reports that the
government had confused the names of two rivers on their maps, meaning that their
title boundary, which follows one of those rivers, is shown incorrectly on government
maps. This has led to the exclusion of roughly one-third of the village’s title from
government maps of its titled land (see Map 3). Miners working on concessions in
that portion of the village’s title have not respected the village’s authority and have
blocked residents from utilizing traditional trails to access their resource areas.
Mining activity in that area has also caused significant damage to important farming
grounds and areas the village had considered had significant eco-tourism potential.
In the case of Arau Village, the village’s title plan does not match its title description,
and the GLSC later admitted to an error in the plan after sending an officer with local
guides to verify the title boundaries (see Map 4).

In addition, there are numerous instances in which villages have found that maps
held by various government agencies, such as the Guyana Geology or Mines
Commission (“GGMC”) or Guyana Forestry Commission (“GFC”), show different title
boundaries than the title plans they hold. As one particularly egregious example,
Kako Village is entirely missing on the latest database of indigenous titled villages
provided to the researchers by the Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission
(“GLSC”) (see Map 5). The village also does not appear on GGMC’s maps. This
means the GGMC has
issued mining conces-
sions in Kako’s titled
lands possibly without
knowing that the village
exists and without
considering the impact
of the mining on the
village, as required by
the Amerindian Act. It
has also undermined
the ability of the village
to exercise its authority
under the Amerindian
Act to deny consent to
small- and medium-
scale mining operations
in its titled lands.

Map 4. The title plan of Arau Village

excludes the southern portion of its title,
resulting in confusion over the geographic
extent of the village’s authority and
numerous conflicts with miners operating
in that area of the village’s titled lands.
09
 Map 5. Kako Village has title, granted in 1991.
However, the village is missing from government
maps, contributing to or resulting in the granting
of numerous mining concessions in its title and
conflicts with miners operating in the village’s
lands.

Land conflicts: The majority of indigenous communities, 88 out of 108 visited,

report having faced conflicts over land and resources on their customary
lands, including 73 villages reporting conflicts inside titled lands. A significant
number of land and resource conflicts reported have been with persons or companies
doing natural resource extraction, specifically, mining or logging. However, there have
also been conflicts over the seeking or issuance of agricultural leases, as well as
persons entering village lands without permission to conduct activities such as tourism
or fishing. In addition, some villages also report conflicts with protected areas, which
have not only prevented villages from obtaining title over certain parts of their customary
lands but are restricting the ability of indigenous peoples to practice their traditional
activities inside their customary lands in the protected area (see Map 6). Examples
include residents of Chenapou being told they cannot take traditional trails through
Kaieteur National Park to hunt and fish; residents of Santa Rosa being told they
cannot practice traditional turtle hunting or fishing in Shell Beach Protected Area;
and residents of Sand Creek being told they could not cut lumber from the Kanuku
Mountains Protected Area to build houses.

In some instances, these land conflicts have escalated into confrontations in which
villagers report being threatened and blocked from accessing traditional hunting or
gathering grounds. In one particularly appalling case, miners in Karisparu threatened
an elder of the village, Mamai Lucille Williams, to move so they could mine on her
property, and when she refused, destroyed her house.

Lack of clarity of title: The issuance of titles with ‘save and except’ clauses and
other lack of clarity in title boundaries has compounded many land and
resource conflicts. Most often, conflicts inside titled lands arise from logging or
mining concessions being granted inside the title without any consultation with or the
consent of the village. These conflicts are exacerbated when the extent of the
village’s title is unclear, as when there are mapping inconsistencies and errors (see
above). Notably, most village titles granted after 2006 have a “save and except”
clause in the title that excludes “lands legally held” from the title area. This clause has
been used by miners to deny the village rights over the area if the miner obtained their
concession before the village got its title.
10
KEY RECOMMENDATIONS

The researchers conducting these Land Tenure Assessments have consistently

heard the same recommendations from the villages they visit. The recommendations
are for changes in law and policy that can help address the problems with security of
tenure described above. They are in line with international human rights law and echo
recommendations previously made to the government of Guyana by international
human rights treaty bodies11. These include the following:

Revise the Amerindian Act to ensure respect for indigenous peoples’ rights to
our lands and territories and our right to FPIC.

A few specific recommendations for a revised Act include:

— Allow villages in a district to hold shared collective title, should they choose to do so
— Ensure land titles correspond to customary lands
— Ensure respect for effective participation and free, prior and informed consent
(“FPIC”), including:
Requiring participation in decision-making and FPIC prior to granting forestry
and mining concessions
Removing the discriminatory provision in the current law that allows for the
government to approve large-scale mining activity even where a village has
refused their consent to it
Requiring participation in decision-making and FPIC for all proposed laws,
policies, projects, or activities that may have significant impacts on indigenous
rights, including the establishment of protected areas, hydro-dam or hydro
power projects, the low carbon development strategy, etc.

Improve the land titling process to ensure that:

— Title and extension applications are processed in a timely and efficient manner
— The consideration of applications takes relevant factors and sources of information
as described in international human rights law and standards (such as oral
statements or sketches by community members describing their lands and their
relationship therewith, or information from archaeologists or anthropologists) into
consideration
— The legal effect of absolute grants and certificates of title is clarified
— There are appropriate remedies for rights violations or other errors in the process,
such as where a village believes a titling decision was made arbitrarily or there are
errors in its demarcation
— Prior to titling, there will be a fair and rights-respecting process to address third
party interests

See, e.g., CERD CO 2006; CESCR CO 2015; and UNCEDAW (2019), Concluding observations on the ninth periodic report of
11

Guyana, CEDAW/C/GUY/CO/9 (hereinafter “CEDAW CO 2019”)

11
— The land titling process follows the Guideline for Amerindian Land Titling in
Guyana (“ALT Guideline”)12, which had been collaboratively developed under the
Guyana REDD+ Investment Fund-supported Amerindian Land Titling (“ALT”)
Project13 by a Representative Platform comprised of government and indigenous
community representatives. The purpose in establishing the Representative
Platform and publishing the ALT Guideline was three-fold: (i) to guide stakeholder
engagement processes; (ii) to outline a clear process for delimitation, demarcation,
and titling of indigenous lands; and (iii) to develop grievance and dispute resolution
mechanisms to address conflicts related to indigenous land titling14.

Resolve and prevent land conflicts by:

— Cancelling and revoking concessions and protected areas granted over indigenous
customary lands without the affected community’s/ies’ FPIC and granting that land
back to the control of the community/ies
— Ceasing to grant concessions or other interests on indigenous customary lands
(e.g., titled lands and lands claimed in title or extension applications) without FPIC

Correcting mapping errors, including:

— Correcting errors in village title demarcations

— Updating government mapping databases with corrected information about village
titles and place names, based on local knowledge and indigenous-produced
maps, such as the APA mapping database
— Ensuring that all government agencies and offices are using the same, correct
information about village titled lands

12
A Guideline for Amerindian Land Titling in Guyana, approved by the Amerindian Land Titling Project Board (6 April 2017), available
at: https://www.gy.undp.org/content/dam/guyana/docs/GOVPOV/Guideline-for-Amerindian-Land-Titling-in-Guyana.pdf (hereinafter
cited as “ALT Guideline”)
13
The ALT Project began in 2013 with the purpose of facilitating the indigenous land titling process in Guyana. The Amerindian Act
legally obligates the government of Guyana to investigate applications for and issue, where the criteria in the Act are met, titles for
indigenous communities. The government had previously found high costs to be a barrier to meeting this legal obligation, and the ALT
Project allocated funding from the Guyana REDD+ Investment Fund to address those costs.
14
ALT Guideline at Pg. 2
12
Map 6. Map of Guyana showing indigenous lands, mining and forestry concessions, and protected areas.

13
LAND TENURE ASSESSMENT
RESULTS AT-A-GLANCE

85
Villages
with Title

4 Satisfied with Title 76 Dissatisfied with Title

Villages
with Land
Conflicts 73 Villages with Conflicts
in TITLED LANDS 79 Villages with Conflicts
in UNTITLED LANDS

68
Villages
with
Demarcated
Boundaries

12 Satisfied with
Demarcation 41 Dissatisfied with
Demarcation

Reporting that
Reporting they are unsure Reporting

20 demarcation
is correct ? 20 if demarcation
is correct 20 demarcation
is wrong

61
Villages
part of
Amerindian
Land
Titling (ALT)
Project
Activities

28 Activities
Completed ? 66 Activities
Incomplete 11 Not Consented to
or Requested

14
DETAILED RECOMMENDATIONS

The Land Tenure Assessment reports for each region describe in more detail many of
the land tenure security issues summarized in the Key Findings section of this report.
This report presents the recommendations that have been consistently raised by
district and village leaders, elders, other knowledge holders, and other community
members. It also aims to provide a more detailed analysis of how adopting these
recommendations would help in preventing and resolving the issues identified, as
well as ideas for what changes in law, policy, and practice are needed to implement
these recommendations.

Researchers identified four main recommendations, each with specific accompanying

recommendations.

Main recommendation 1: Revise the Amerindian Act to ensure respect for

indigenous peoples’ rights to our lands and territories and our right to FPIC.

The Amerindian Act 2006 is the primary legislation that governs indigenous peoples'
rights in Guyana. As such, it provides the legal framework within which indigenous
peoples' rights to land are recognized and protected. Human rights treaty bodies
have pointed out, however, that there are important deficiencies in the Amerindian Act
and have recommended revisions to bring the Act in line with international norms and
standards. Broadly, these recommendations urge the government to ensure that the
Act recognizes and protects the rights of all indigenous peoples to own, develop,
manage, and use their traditional lands15.

To implement this recommendation, the government should allocate funding to draft

a revised bill on indigenous rights and engage in consultations with indigenous
communities on that draft bill.

Specifically, in order to be brought in line with international human rights norms and
standards, a revised Act should:

Recognize territorial titles held collectively by villages in a district. The failure of the
existing Amerindian Act to allow for joint titles has been specifically pointed out by
international human rights bodies as an infringement on indigenous peoples’ rights
that should be addressed in a revised Act.16 Revising the Act such that villages could
choose to hold title jointly would resolve the issue over which the villages in the Upper
Mazaruni have taken the government to court. It would also mean that other groups
of villages that had been denied requests for joint title in the past could now apply
again for those district-level titles. This includes villages in the Northwest (Region 1);
Middle Mazaruni (Region 7); North Pakaraimas (Region 8); and South Rupununi
(Region 9).

15
See, e.g., CERD CO 2006 at para 15 (recommending that the government “remove the discriminatory distinction between titled and
untitled communities… In particular […] to recognize and support the establishment of Village Councils or other appropriate institutions
in all indigenous communities, vested with the powers necessary for the self-administration and the control of the use, management
and conservation of traditional lands and resources”); CESCR CO 2015 at para 15 (recommending that the government “revise the
Amerindian Act 2006 and other relevant laws with a view to ensuring, in accordance with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples, that the Amerindian people’s rights to their lands, territories and resources are fully recognized and protected
and that their free, prior and informed consent is obtained in respect of the adoption of any legislation, policy and/or project affecting
their lands or territories and other resources”); CEDAW CO 2019 at para 44(b) (recommending that the government “[a]mend the
Amerindian Act (2006) and other relevant laws, using a gender-sensitive approach, with a view to ensuring that the rights of Amerindi-
an communities to their lands, territories and resources are fully recognized and protected, in accordance with the United Nations
Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”).
16
CESCR CO 2015 at para 14(a).
15
Map 7. Mining concessions granted by GGMC cover almost the entire territory of Isseneru.

— What revisions would such a recommendation require? Accepting this recommen-

dation would require amending the Act so that both village and district councils (or
other form of representative body chosen by the indigenous peoples) are bodies
that can hold title to lands. Land held by a village title would be held collectively by
the village, whereas lands held under a district title would be held jointly by the
constituent villages within the district and governed by the district council. Imple-
menting this recommendation would require corresponding amendments to allow
villages to apply for title jointly.

Ensure land titles correspond to customary lands. International human rights bodies
have noted the “limitation of indigenous communities with land titles to manage and
control resources within their territories”17, as well as the lack of protection for commu-
nities without land title or with pending title applications18. Part of the reason for the
limited control that even titled indigenous communities have over their resources is
that their titles do not correspond to the full extent of their customary lands, and many
resources used by the community are located in untitled lands. A second reason for
this lack of control over resources is that indigenous title does not include title to water
or subsoil resources (see next recommendation). Implementing this recommendation
would resolve a significant reason that the majority of villages are dissatisfied with
their titles by giving indigenous communities legal recognition and authority over the
full extent of their customary lands, in accordance with international human rights law
and the recommendations of human rights treaty bodies.

— What revisions would such a recommendation require? A revised Amerindian Act

would need to include provisions in what is currently Part VI on grants of title and
extension of title to ensure that there is a clear process for determining the boundaries
of customary village lands (more detailed recommendations on this can be found
in the following set of recommendations on the titling process).
17
CESCR CO 2015 at para 14(c).
18
CESCR CO 2015 at para 14(d).

16
Recognize the right of indigenous peoples to the water and subsoil resources on their
lands. Recognition and protection of the right of indigenous peoples “to own, develop
and control the lands which they traditionally occupy, including water and subsoil
resources…” (emphasis added) has been explicitly recommended to the government
by human rights treaty bodies. Such protection would resolve many of the land and
resource conflicts indigenous communities have reported, particularly those related
to mining and fishing in their lands.

— What revisions would such a recommendation require? This recommendation

suggests the need to amend the Amerindian Act to specify that the subsoil and
water resources inside indigenous titled areas are included within those titles,
and that this provision prevails over conflicting provisions in other laws that may
reserve mineral rights to the government.

Image 1. Destruction of river bank caused by four Hydraulic dredges (Draggas) by third parties on titled Amerindian
Village of Micobie.

19
CERD CO 2006 at para 16.
17
Ensure respect for effective participation and FPIC. The right of indigenous peoples to
effective participation and free, prior, and informed consent is an important safeguard
for guaranteeing other substantive rights. The UN Committee on the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination (“CERD”), for example, recommended that the government
“undertake environmental impact assessments and seek the informed consent
of concerned indigenous communities prior to authorizing any mining or similar
operations which may threaten the environment in areas inhabited by these
communities”20, and the UN Committee on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights
(“CESCR”) recommended that the government ensure that indigenous peoples’ “free,
prior and informed consent is obtained in respect of the adoption of any legislation,
policy and/or project affecting their lands or territories and other resources”21.

Ensuring that indigenous peoples have a guaranteed right to participate in decision-

making on laws, policies, or projects that may impact their rights, including in their
untitled customary lands, would help prevent land and resource conflicts in indigenous
lands. For example, seeking FPIC prior to the granting of mining and logging
concessions in indigenous peoples’ customary, including untitled, lands, as well as
prior to the commencement of mining or logging activity, would avoid conflicts over
mining and logging activities happening in indigenous communities. The GGMC has
been observed, for example, to “grant[] mining concessions superposing over indigenous
territories, even after the land request legal and administrative process has begun”22.
This suggests that at the very minimum, the GGMC, GFC, and GLSC should refrain
from issuing any new concessions or leases in lands that have been applied for as
indigenous titled lands.

Image 2. Amaila falls, the site for a proposed hydropower facility on the Kuribrong river.

20
CERD CO 2006 at para 19
21
CESCR CO 2015 at para 15
22
Camacho-Nassar, Carlos, Mid-term Evaluation of the Amerindian Land Titling Project in Guyana, December 2016, available at
http://www.guyanareddfund.org/images/stories/pdffiles/ALT_Mid-Term_Evaluation_Report.pdf (hereinafter cited as “ALT Midterm
Evaluation”) at p 10
18
The Amerindian Act does already include some measure of respect for FPIC, requiring
that non-village residents obtain the consent of the village in order to conduct forestry
or small- or medium-scale mining activities on titled village lands. However, this limits
indigenous peoples’ right to participation and FPIC to titled lands, which is problematic
when titled lands do not correspond to customary lands. The Amerindian Act also does
not include protection for the rights to participation and FPIC more generally, for example,
in the context of decision-making on projects such as the building of hydropower
dams or the adoption of policies such as the low carbon development strategy. In
addition, the Amerindian Act currently contains a notable limitation on the right to
FPIC, allowing for the government to approve large-scale mining activity in titled
village lands even where a village has refused consent to the mining, as long as that
mining activity is deemed to be in the public interest23.

Importantly, a few court cases have suggested that these provisions requiring village
consent for small- and medium-scale mining activity in titled lands do not apply to
miners who obtained their concessions prior to the village obtaining its title24. The UN
CESCR specifically expressed its concern about these court rulings and recommended
that “the interpretation and implementation of the Amerindian Act 2006 and other
relevant laws take into account the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples”25.

— What revisions would such a recommendation require? Revising the Amerindian

Act to protect indigenous peoples’ right to effective participation in decision-making
would require adding a provision that requires that indigenous peoples are
consulted and provided with the opportunity to participate in making decisions
around the drafting or planning, adoption, and implementation of new laws,
administrative measures, policies, programmes, projects, and other activities that
may affect them and their rights. The provision should specify that this right
applies regardless of whether any of those projects or activities are happening on
or would affect indigenous titled or untitled, customary land. The revised Act
would also require a deletion of the section in the current Act that allows the
government to override a village’s refusal of consent to large-scale mining.

In addition to those changes, the revised law would need a corresponding provision
to define a method for determining the extent of untitled customary land (this can be
done, for example, by using title applications as a proxy for untitled customary lands
until such time as the application is processed) and for determining when laws,
administrative measures, policies, programmes, projects, or other activities may
impact indigenous peoples and require their participation and consent. Finally, the
revision in the Act would need to ensure that decision-making and FPIC processes
are undertaken in accordance with the customs of each indigenous community26.

23
The AmerAmerindian Act, Cap 29:01, at Sec. 50
24
The High Court of Guyana noted that mining licences convey property rights on the licence holder and that mining licences existing
prior to the Village’s title are excluded from indigenous title by the “save and except” clause. Moreover, regardless of the existence of
“save and except” clauses, mining permits granted prior to the entry into force of the Amerindian Act are not subject to the mining
provisions of the Amerindian Act, which require miners operating in Amerindian Village lands to obtain permission from the Village. In
the matter of an application by Joan Avahnelle Chang, No. 136-M, High Court of the Supreme Court of Judicature, Decision of Diana
Insanally, 17 January 2013 at pp 14-16. See also In the matter of an application by Daniel Dazell, No. 158-M, High Court of the
Supreme Court of Judicature, Judgment of Ian Chang (3 March 2009) at p 17; In the Matter of an Application by Wayne Vieira (herein-
after Vieira 2013), No. 2-M, High Court of the Supreme Court of Judicature, Decision of Chief Justice Ian Chang, 17 May 2013 at pp
27-28
25
CESCR CO 2015 at paras 16-17
26
This was also a recommendation of the ALT Midterm Evaluation: “[P]revious to the FPIC process, local authorities should be consult-
ed with the aim to agree a pertinent local consultation strategy”. ALT Midterm Evaluation at p 14.
19
Main recommendation 2: Improve the land titling process to ensure that it
achieves the end result of protecting indigenous peoples’ land rights.

International human rights law recognizes that indigenous peoples’ rights to their
lands are inherent; in order to protect those rights, governments have an obligation to
legally recognize those lands. This means that the titling process should ensure that
the titles indigenous peoples receive correspond to their traditional lands. Doing this
requires that the government “establish adequate procedures [and] define clear and
just criteria to resolve land claims by indigenous communities within the domestic
judicial system while taking due account of relevant indigenous customary laws”27.

To implement this recommendation, the government should fully implement and

follow the ALT Guideline, including by adopting them into regulations under a revised
Amerindian Act. Many of the complaints that the Land Tenure Assessment researchers
heard about the land titling process are issues that had been considered and were
addressed in the drafting and adoption of the ALT Guideline. These include
complaints around not having the titling and demarcation processes explained properly;
lack of proper consultation and consent to the final titles granted or demarcation
maps prepared; and failure to address third party interests overlapping their lands in
the process. In addition, the ALT Guideline includes provisions for the operationalization
of the Grievance Redress Mechanism, which could help address complaints about
the titling process early on.

Specific recommendations in relation to the land titling process include:

Title and extension applications should be processed in a timely and efficient manner.
This was a particular recommendation from the UN CESCR to “make the title granting
process easily accessible for the Amerindian communities and more time efficient”28.
Out of 53 villages visited by LTA researchers that have applied for title or extension to
title, only 6 report having received them, and 2 of those villages are continuing to
apply because the extensions they received did not correspond to the customary
lands they sought to protect. Many villages report having first applied for title decades
ago and still having no formal responses from the government regarding the timeline for
processing their applications. Numerous villages recall having to resubmit applications
for title and extension because they had been informed that the Ministry lost or
misplaced their applications. The ALT Project, which was specifically funded for the
purpose of advancing indigenous land titling in Guyana, began in 2013 but to date
has not even completed a third of its planned actions29.

— What should the Government do to implement this recommendation? Acting on

this recommendation primarily requires a change in the practice of how land titling
processes are completed. It would require all agencies who have a role to play in
this process (e.g., Ministry of Amerindian Affairs, GLSC, GGMC, GFC) to dedicate
time and personnel to the process and ensure that they follow the procedures set
out in the ALT Guideline. In addition, the Amerindian Act should be revised to
require that the Ministry complete its investigation of title and extension applications
within a reasonable period of time. It should similarly require that once the Minister
has approved title, the title documents must be issued within a reasonable period
of time.

27
CERD CO 2006 at para 16
28
CESCR CO 2015 at para 17(a)
29
This metric of “planned actions” refers to the planned outcomes of the project, namely, the issuance of absolute grants of title or
certificates of title (following a demarcation). It does not refer to the intermediary actions, such as investigation of title applications, that
are required in the titling process.

20
Relevant factors for the determination of the existence of customary land tenure, as
described in international human rights law and standards, should be used to make
titling decision. International human rights bodies have noted with concern that there
is an “absence of clear criteria” for the titling of indigenous lands30. The ALT Project
Midterm Review similarly recommended that the investigation of the title application
provide the “social, political, legal and cultural justification of the land grant”31.
Instead, currently, the Amerindian Act leaves the Minister with almost complete
discretion in deciding whether or not to grant title.

The Amerindian Act does require investigations of title applications to gather information
regarding the use and occupation of the village and the nature of the community’s
relationship to the land32. However, it leaves to the Minister’s discretion whether or
not to accept evidence from the community in the form of oral statements; historical
documentation; or reports from anthropologists or archaeologists33. Ironically, two of
the criteria that the Amerindian Act requires for indigenous land titling are unrelated to
indigenous customary tenure – they require communities applying for title to prove
that they have been in existence for 25 years and have a population of at least 15034.

The determination of whether or not communities receive title should be based on

whether or not the indigenous community can demonstrate customary ownership,
occupation, and use of the land (see Map 7). As such, oral testimonies; historical
documentation; anthropological or archaeological reports would all be relevant and
should be accepted where the community seeks to present such evidence as part of
their title application, whereas the fact that a community cannot prove existence
beyond 25 years or has a population below 150 should not be a determining factor.
For example, the communities of Father’s Beach and Moruwa have populations that
do not meet the requirement to apply for title.

Map 8. The Moruwa Sipuruni Valley is an important cultural and spiritual area for the Patamona people, including
numerous fishing, hunting, gathering, and sacred sites.

30
CESCR CO 2015 at para 14(b).
31
ALT Midterm Evaluation at p 12.
32
Amerindian Act at Sec. 61(2).
33
Amerindian Act at Sec. 61(3).
34
Amerindian Act at Sec. 60(1).

21
— What should the Government do to implement this recommendation? Implementing
this recommendation could start by ensuring that the Ministry follows the ALT
Guideline in investigating title applications. It would also require a revision to the
Amerindian Act that ensures the Minister follows a prescribed process in making
their decision and that removes the Minister’s unlimited discretion to reject
requested title areas arbitrarily without even providing the rationale for such rejection.

Where the Minister decides to reject a village’s application, the Ministry must negotiate
with the village to agree on the final title that will be approved. This recommendation is
important to emphasize because only one village recalls having had a meeting with
the Ministry to finalize and accept their title, while the vast majority of villages report
not having agreed to the final title that was granted to them and that this title did not
match the areas over which they requested legal recognition. Where it is not possible
for a title application to be granted as requested, the Minister must explain why such
a grant is not possible to the village and agree with the village on amendments to the
request to ensure that title grants are protecting the full extent of an indigenous
community’s traditional lands as much as possible.

— What should the Government do to implement this recommendation? This

recommendation already forms part of the ALT Guideline35, which should be
followed and incorporated into regulations. In addition to following the ALT
Guideline, effective implementation of this recommendation requires revision of
the Amerindian Act such that the Minister not have unfettered discretion to reject
title applications arbitrarily (see previous recommendation). Where the Minister
does not believe that the requested title reflects the indigenous community’s
traditional lands, the Act should require the Minister to provide the reasons for that
belief and initiate a negotiations process with the village.

During the investigation of the title application, there should be a fair process to
address third party interests affecting the indigenous community’s land. This
recommendation is crucial to ensuring that indigenous titles are not burdened with
concessions that render the titles effectively worthless. One semi-successful example
of this happening is when the GFC did not renew the forestry concession for Barama
Logging Company after it expired in 2016. The concession had significantly over-
lapped the titles of Kokerite and Chinese Landing Villages. The removal of the
concession from indigenous titled lands is an important step (although it should have
happened when the villages first obtained title)36. This recommendation closely
relates to the need to require effective participation and FPIC in making decisions to
grant concessions in the first instance37. This recommendation is crucial to ensuring
that indigenous titles are not burdened with concessions that render the titles
effectively worthless.

35
See ALT Guideline at p 14, paras 40(2) and 44.
36
It is unclear whether those same concession areas that overlapped the village titles were later reallocated to other logging companies.
If they were, such reissuance of the concessions was done without consultation with the villages that the government knew had a land
title conflict with Barama. See “Barama concessions to be split 4 ways as Govt re-allocating to varied parties”, INEWS GUYANA, 30
December 2016, available at https://www.inewsguyana.com/barama-concessions-to-be-split-4-ways-as-govt-re-allocating-to-varied-
parties/.
37
See also, ALT Midterm Evaluation at p 10 (recommending that “Permissions for mining in indigenous lands should respect the FPIC
and all social and environmental safeguards”).

22
Map 9. Map of Kangaruma and Tassarene, two villages which are burdened with numerous mining and forestry
concessions inside their titled lands.

— What should the Government do to implement this recommendation? The first

step in addressing this recommendation is ensuring that the GGMC, GFC, and
GLSC do not issue any new mining concessions, forestry concessions, or leases
in land that is subject to a title application. To address concessions, leases, or
other interests that already exist, the Government should follow the ALT Guideline
and engage in a process of consultation with the third-party rights holders, and
consider cancelling, relocating, or not renewing such rights or interests while
ensuring that the rights of third parties are respected38.

The demarcation process should be done with village residents who know the land
and should involve the participation of neighbouring villages. The ALT Midterm
Evaluation recommended that “Demarcation should be always done walking the
perimeter with the indigenous authorities… The boundaries demarcation cannot be
done without the presence of the neighbour’s representatives and all conflicts need
an in-situ agreement”39. The lack of effective participation in decision-making from the
village and neighbouring communities has led to numerous demarcation errors and
disputes that could have been avoided. For example, residents of Monkey Mountain
report that the demarcation of their title mistook one set of waterfalls for the waterfalls
mentioned in their title description, thus cutting off a portion of their title in which 56
households live. Another example is that a boundary dispute between Kato and
Kurukabaru Villages is in part the result of demarcation exercises that did not involve
both communities and resulting claims that parts of one village’s title were demarcated
into the title of the other.

— What should the Government do to implement this recommendation? This

recommendation could be implemented by following the ALT Guideline, which
require the demarcation team to agree with the village the names of places to be
demarcated, invite neighbouring villages to observe the demarcation, invite members
of the village to join the team, and obtain a final endorsement of the cadastral
survey following the demarcation exercise40.
38
See ALT Guideline at p 12, paras 12-13.
39
ALT Midterm Evaluation at p 12.
40
ALT Guideline at pp 16-17, para 49(h)-(l).

23
There should be a revision in the law to clarify the legal effect of absolute grants and
certificates of title. The Amerindian Act does not specify the actual process for issuing
title, instead dictating that once approved, title shall be granted under the State Lands
Act, which does not provide for demarcation or the issuance of certificates of title. The
laws in Guyana provide little clarity regarding the legal effect of an error in demarcation
and a discrepancy between the area of land protected by an absolute grant and the
area of land protected by a certificate of title. This is deeply concerning to at least 35
villages who report errors in the demarcation of their titles. An effective Grievance
Redress Mechanism could help address this concern, as could ensuring a village’s
participation and consent in the titling and demarcation process (see above
recommendation). However, legal clarity would be helpful in ensuring that an
incorrect demarcation or a mapping error does not deprive a village of its legal title.

— What should the Government do to implement this recommendation? This

recommendation could be implemented through a revised Amerindian Act. The
Act could specify the legal effect of the absolute grant and certificate of title, for
example, stating that where an absolute grant and certificate of title are inconsistent
with one another, any doubt as to the existence of title is resolved in favour of the
village.

Main recommendation 3: Resolve and prevent land conflicts by cancelling and

revoking concessions and protected areas granted on indigenous peoples’
lands without their FPIC and refraining from granting the same without FPIC.

International human rights bodies have noted with concern that there were a “broad
range of exceptions that allow mining and logging activities by external investors without
the free, prior and informed consent of the affected indigenous peoples”41 and that
there was an “absence of effective legal remedies by which indigenous peoples may
seek and obtain restitution of their lands that are held by third parties”42. For mining
and logging activities, it is the lack of protections for untitled lands and the protection
of mining interests granted prior to the issuance of indigenous title that currently
cause the most land and resource conflicts.

In the case of protected areas, there are no legal mechanisms by which indigenous
peoples can seek revocation of those parts of the protected areas that overlap their
traditional lands and to instead obtain title over that area. With the exception of
Kanashen, every protected area in Guyana overlaps traditional indigenous lands
without recognizing the indigenous peoples’ ownership of the land, creating situations
where indigenous peoples are restricted from performing customary activities inside
those areas.

41
CESCR CO 2015 at para 14(e).
42
CESCR CO 2015 at para 14(f).

24
Shell Beach Protected Area has prevented Father’s Beach and Almond Beach from
obtaining title and Santa Rosa Village from receiving an extension to their title. Resi-
dents of other villages report not having been consulted about the boundaries of the
park and being restricted from carrying out traditional activities, such as crabbing or
harvesting turtle eggs, inside the park. Similar situations are happening with Kaieteur
National Park and restrictions on Patamona people’s traditional activities; Iwokrama
International Centre and Forest and restrictions on traditional Patamona and Macushi
activities; and the Kanuku Mountains Protected Area and restrictions on traditional
Macushi and Wapichan activities. Importantly, many of these protected areas are
important not just for indigenous peoples’ subsistence and livelihood activities, but
they contain important spiritual and cultural sites. Kaieteur Waterfall, for instance, is
sacred to the Patamona people, while the Kanuku Mountains are an important resting
place for Wapichan marunao nao (shaman).

Image 3. Kaieteur National Park, a sacred place of the Patamuna people.

— What should the Government do to implement this recommendation? The ALT

Guideline already suggest that the government should address third party rights or
interests in the land titling process, and that it should, where possible, consider
cancelling, relocating, or not renewing concessions that had been granted in
indigenous peoples’ customary lands without FPIC. Proper implementation of this
recommendation could require revision of the Amerindian Act to explicitly provide
for a process of cancelling, relocating, or not renewing concessions that had been
granted in indigenous peoples’ lands without their FPIC, as well as a process for
revoking parts of protected areas that had been created over indigenous lands
without consent.

25
Main recommendation 4: Correct errors in village title grants, demarcations,
and government agency maps.

Correct errors in village titles. Several villages have refused demarcation until their
title reflects the full extent of their traditional lands. They are rejecting the notion that
land rights are a discretionary privilege granted by the state and instead asserting
the state’s obligation to legally recognize their inherent rights. The ALT Midterm
Evaluation noted that accepting the requests from communities to process their
applications as “corrections” to their title as opposed to “new requests” is “very important;
it represents a vindication of indigenous peoples and also a conflict prevention strategy”43.

— What should the Government do to implement this recommendation? The Ministry

should formally write to the villages who have requested that their titles be corrected
(Chenapau, Arau, Kaikan, Kambaru/Omanaik) to inform them that the Ministry is
willing to correct their title applications; to let them know what information the
Ministry currently has on file for the village; to request the village to either confirm
that the information the Ministry has is accurate or to provide updated information
to the Ministry; and to inform the village of the next steps in the titling process.

Correct errors in village title demarcations. Numerous villages have indicated that
they felt that there were errors in their title demarcations or that they were unclear
what area precisely was demarcated (see recommendation above on the proper
conduct of demarcation exercises). Some villages, however, provided to the LTA
research teams very detailed knowledge of the errors in the demarcations and where
the demarcation deviated from their title description.

— What should the Government do to implement this recommendation? The GLSC

should write to every village and provide them with a process for obtaining a copy
of the cadastral plan that is currently on file with the GLSC. It should inform villages
that where they have identified errors in the demarcation, the village should
reply to the GLSC and let it know where the error is. The GLSC should allow
villages to independently hire a surveyor to conduct a correct survey of the
village’s title, and, once verified by the GLSC, update the cadastral survey of the
village’s title, along with its certificate of title. Where villages choose not to, or do
not have the resources to, hire surveyors, the GLSC should provide surveyors to
conduct the corrected survey and demarcation, following the protocol in the ALT
Guideline. The Land Tenure Assessment reports already provide details regarding
the demarcation errors in several villages and should be used as a reference in
preparing to make these corrections.

43
ALT Midterm Evaluation at p 11

26
Update government mapping databases with correct information about village titles.
Villages report that maps they have seen from the GLSC, the GGMC, and GFC have
errors in them compared to their title descriptions. They also do not have correct
information regarding the areas that villages have applied for as title or extension to title.

— What should the Government do to implement this recommendation? The Ministry

should ensure that the latest applications and maps of title areas applied for
should be provided to the GLSC, and the GLSC should ensure that it updates its
database of village title and proposed title areas. The GLSC should ensure that
this information is passed to the GGMC and GFC, and the GGMC and GFC
should regularly request any updates from the GLSC. These government
databases of indigenous village titles, proposed titles, and concession areas
must be accessible for indigenous communities and civil society to review. The
Ministry should review the Land Tenure Assessment reports and write a letter to
the villages who have provided detailed complaints regarding errors in government
maps to verify and address the complaints.

27